* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The maintenance part of me suggesting getting rid of krb5 is the > smallest one. It being a non-standard protocol is more important, and > the fact that the exchange breaks the libpq protocol and is not > protected by SSL is the big reason.
Erm, it doesn't need to be protected by SSL? Breaking the libpq protocol does kind of suck. I assume you're not requiring SSL for the GSSAPI stuff... Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature